8/11/2019 Reader Response and Odyssey
1/18
Reader Response and Classical Pedagogy: Teaching the "Odyssey"
Author(s): Panos SeranisSource: The Classical World, Vol. 98, No. 1 (Autumn, 2004), pp. 61-77Published by: Classical Association of the Atlantic StatesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4352904Accessed: 06/10/2008 09:30
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classaas.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Classical Association of the Atlantic Statesis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Classical World.
http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4352904?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classaashttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classaashttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4352904?origin=JSTOR-pdf8/11/2019 Reader Response and Odyssey
2/18
PAEDAGOGUS
READER
RESPONSE
AND
CLASSICAL
PEDAGOGY:
TEACHING THE ODYSSEY
The present
study' explored
the
reader-response patterns produced by
thirty-five A-Level
(year 12) students
from three different schools to the
teaching of classical literature in
translation. The
emphasis
was
placed
on
their
reading and reacting to the Odyssey, one of
the set
texts for
their A-
Level Classical Civilization course
in
Britain. Lesson
plans
and activities
using reader
response techniques were provided
to the
teachers,
and
per-
sonal
reading logs
were
distributed
to
all
students
participating
in the
study.
I. Conceptualizing the Problem
The
introduction
of
the
A-Level
Classical
Civilization
syllabus
in Brit-
ain in 1974
marked
a
shift in
emphasis
on the
study
of
classics, high-
lighting the need
for a reorientation of classical education. The introduc-
tion of a course
dealing
with
the teaching of classical literature in trans-
lation, however,
raised
concerns
about
the
relevance of
its
place
within
classical education.2
Any question of teaching and learning the subject
needs to
be considered
in
relation
to
this context,
which,
in
turn, can be
viewed as a pragmatic response to the decline
in
the number of students
taking classical subjects.
Classical Civilization
is
now an established
subject
that
has been
taught
and examined for thirty years. The A-Level statistics
for
the year 2003
indicate
that
Classical Civilization had more entries than
Greek, Latin,
and Ancient
History put together.
It
seems
a
paradox that
the
subject with
the most students is the
one
least researched.
It
is,
therefore, an appropri-
ate
time to
investigate
the
teaching of
the course
that
deals
more with
a
broader
sweep
of the
literature
and
the
culture
of
the
Graeco-Roman civi-
lizations than
linguistic courses. Such an investigation
needs to
be
carried
out within
the
context
of the
teaching-learning process.
The
encounters
of
teachers and
students
with
classical texts can shed
light on the signifi-
cance
of the
subject from
both
a
literary
and a
pedagogical point
of view.
Reader response, as
used
in
this study, provides the link between literary
theory and
pedagogy, two areas which have been habitually approached as
separate entities.3
II. The Research Questions
This
study
seeks
to
investigate
the
extent
to which
students' voices can
be
expressed
in
the classical
literature classroom.
It
explores how reader-
response
activities
(hereafter, RRA)
can
encourage
a
genuine encounter
between
the
reader
and
the
text, leading
to
self-understanding and active
learning.
It
was
decided that the research should emphasize the reading
I
This article is part of a
larger
project that has been
undertaken at the Univer-
sity of
Cambridge.
For an
extensive account
see
P.
Seranis,
The Place
of Reader Response
in the Teaching of Ancient Greek Literature in Translation (Cambridge 2000).
2
See "Editorial: A-Level
Syllabus
in
Classical
Studies," JACT
Bulletin
28
(1972)
1-2.
3 For an
account
concerning literary theory
and
classical literature
in
particular,
see
S.
Goldhill, "Who's
Afraid
of
Literary
Theory?"
JACT Review n.s. 10 (1991)
8-11.
61
8/11/2019 Reader Response and Odyssey
3/18
62
CLASSICAL
WORLD
processes of students in relation
to prescribed texts, since the setting
within
which the study was to be implemented presupposed the teaching of clas-
sical literature
for examinations. These processes
would provide insights
into the students' awareness
of reading and the development
of literary
appreciation in respect to classical
texts. In the
light of the issues dis-
cussed above, the following research
questions were
identified:
*
What
are the processes
employed by
students in reading
classical literature?
*
Does reader-oriented
practice contribute to effective reading
of classical literature?
*
What implications
for teaching classical literature can
be
drawn from studying
students' responses?
III.
The
Research Design
The mode
of
inquiry
was
mainly qualitative;
quantitative findings were
reported to the extent that they
inform the qualitative
account. Students
recorded their views in personal
reading logs and
in
questionnaires
ad-
ministered both during and after
the series of lessons.
In-depth interviews
were
also
conducted with a sample
of students. The findings, as
presented
here, are mainly based on students'
reading logs, since they provided
the
richest accounts of students' responses
during
the reading activity.
The Reading
Logs
The
main
aim of
the
reading logs was to
enable students
to
record
their personal responses to the passages studied in the classroom. Stu-
dents recorded
their
thoughts
after their individual
reading,
at
the end
of
their group work, and during
the class discussions. Students
were given
detailed
instructions by the
researcher
as
to
when
they
should
put
down
their
responses,
thus
providing
the
necessary
consistency
for
the
analysis
of
their
responses.
The Lesson
Plans
The six lesson
plans
were
based
on an
equal
number of
key
passages
from the Odyssey, varying
in length between
150
and
200
lines.
This was
considered
to be
a
reasonable
amount
of text
for
students
to tackle within a
fifty-minute
lesson.
The
students
were allowed time
for
a
preliminary "pri-
vate" encounter with the text and time to reflect on their responses indi-
vidually and
then within their groups. The
main
aim
of the
lesson
plans
was to
set
out
a reading program
that
promoted
an
autonomous
reading
based
on
students'
experiences
and
expectations
from
the
reading activity.
Establishing personal response:
Students
need
time to
interact
with
the
text,
to be
able to articulate
their initial
responses
to
it,
and to
share
them
with
the
rest
of
the
class. Furthermore,
if
the
focus
is
on
making meaning
rather
than
finding meaning
in
the
text,
then
this
need becomes
even
greater.
Students
were
given
time
in
the observed
lessons
to
reflect
on
their
own encounters
with
the text.
It
seems
a
paradox that,
whilst stu-
dents are usually told that their written accounts should undergo careful
scrutiny
and constant
rewriting,
a
complete
reading
is
approached
as
something to be acquired
on first encounter.
Group
work:
The next
stage
involved
discussion
within
small
groups
of
up
to five
students.
This
gave
students
the
chance
to
interact
closely
with
each
8/11/2019 Reader Response and Odyssey
4/18
PAEDAGOGUS
63
other. The activity
itself
provided
a
setting
where
pupils
shared
ideas
and compared and contrasted differences and likenesses. They also
learned
to defend their
views,
to modify
them in
the light of
com-
pelling
arguments,
and
to be collaborative
and
motivated
without
being antagonistic.
Class
discussion:
The class
as a whole
discussed
the choices
of every group
and
de-
cided on
the most appropriate.
The aim
was to avoid any
sense
of
teacher
or peer
judgment.
Personal
responses
cannot be
judged
on
a
basis
of
"right"
or "wrong," provided
that they
are not based
on
misunderstandings
r
misinterpretations.
Class
discussion
focused
also
on
the main issues
that had occupied small
groups before
the
ex-
aminations.
The Selected
Activities
The lesson plans
included exercises
involving
three variations
of
the
prediction
exercise. Prediction
activities allow
for multiple interpretations
of
the
taught
text.
Pupils
are like the members
of an audience:
giving
one's
own
predictions
to the
story
is like
receiving
the text
and
filling
in
the gaps according
to one's own
reading processes.
There is a
happy
co-
incidence
where the creator and
the
perceiver
come together
in
one per-
son.
Prediction
activities can also
activate students'
previous
knowledge
and experience of
texts and arouse
motivation
in finding
out the likely
development
or outcome of a story.
There
is,
therefore,
an internal cohesion
between
the theoretical model
adopted
for the undertakingand carryingout of the researchand the for-
mulation of
the activities that put
this
theoretical
model into
classroom
practice.
All six lessons
were
planned
using
a type
of the prediction
ac-
tivities,
as they
are presented
below.
There
were three types
of
predic-
tions
in
total,
so each was used
twice.
Prediction
alternatives:
In
this
activity students
were
given
five alternative
outcomes
to a
scene. In their
reading logs,
students
wrote
down individually,
in
note
form, the reasons
that
led
them to opt
for their
selected
out-
come and reject
the others.
Individuals discussed
with their peers
their choice and came
to a
negotiated
agreement
regarding
the most
likely outcome.
Students' own predictions:
The narrative
was
divided into
short
sections
and students
were asked
to speculate
on what
followed or
to fill in
the
gaps/missing
lines
between the installments.
This
required pupils
to use
the evidence
provided
by
the text up
to this point.
Generic
descriptive
labels:
Students took on
the role of the author in
continuing
the story,
us-
ing
the
following
generic
labels:
action, argument,
description,
event,
conversation,
nd
one's
thoughts.4
he
generic
labels
represented
ifferent
ways
in which the story
might
be developed
by the
author. The
students were also asked to justify their choices and to elaborate
upon
them: for instance,
if
they
chose action, they were
expected
to
I
These were adapted by
E. Lunzer and K.
Gardner, Learning
from
the
Written
Word (Edinburgh 1984).
8/11/2019 Reader Response and Odyssey
5/18
64
CLASSICAL
WORLD
say
who the main characters
would be. Whose
argument would be
advanced and why? On what events would the description focus and
who
was going to be the narrator
(the author,
one of the main char-
acters, an
extratextual narrator)? Although the
discussion
was di-
rected, the teacher's
intervention was limited to
clarifying statements
and
providing guidance where
needed.
IV.
Analysis
of
Student
Responses
Many reader-response
theorists5
have
argued
in
favor
of reading
logs.
They claim
that reading logs, by
requiring students to put their
thoughts
on
paper,
help
them
make sense of the
text, organize their more
elaborate
thoughts,
and reread the text
in
a way
that promotes more
advanced re-
sponses.
They
also
note that
self-maintained
records
of
their
work
help
students assess their developing responsiveness to literature. Nevertheless,
responding
in
writing
requires a double
transformation
on
the students'
part:
the
initial reactions
are
transformed into verbal
responses and then
into written
discourse.6
Consequently,
the
realization
of the
initial
responses
into
written form,
making
them
accessible to
others, diminishes the de-
gree to
which
these
reactions
can
be
called
"spontaneous."
Regarding
the
use of
reading logs
and
worksheets
in
classical
literature, Sharwood Smith7
argues
that
they
are
particularly useful,
since there
are
no ideal
textbooks
for
the
needs
of
classical
courses;
and
the
logs
also
help
students
exploit
their
diversity
of
talents and
work
styles.
The
above discussion has focused
on
the value
of
reading
logs
and
their usage
as pedagogical tools. Their
value as
research
tools
in the
present
study
was
determined
by
the fact that
they
shed
light
on
students'
chang-
ing
and
developing responses
to
the activities.
They
served as
a
written
record
of
students' reflective accounts from their encounter
with
the
texts,
which
contributed to
an
understanding
of
the
process
of
response.
V.
Analyzing the
Reading Logs:
The Procedure
Participants
read
a
selected
passage
of
the
Odyssey
in
each
lesson
and
wrote their
responses
in
the
reading logs.
All
reading logs
were
examined
I
See, for instance, L. M.
Rosenblatt, The Reader,the Text, he Poem: The Transactional
Theory of the Literary Work (Carbondale, Ill., 1978) 6-21; Rosenblatt, "The Reading
Transaction:
What For?" in R. Parker and F.
Davis, eds., Developing Literacy (New-
ark, Del.,
1983) 118-35; B. Johnston, Assessing English:
Helping Students to
Reflect
on Their Work (Milton Keynes
1987) 166; L. Stratta and J.
Dixon, "Writing and Lit-
erature: Monitoring and Examining,"
in
B. Corcoran
and
E.
Evans, eds.,
Readers, Texts,
Teachers (Milton
Keynes 1987) 174-96; Corcoran,
"Reader Stance: From Willed Aes-
thetic
to
Discursive Construction,"
in
J.
Many and
C.
Cox,
eds., Reader
Stance
and
Literary Understanding
(Norwood, N.J., 1992)
58; Protherough, Developing Response
to
Fiction
(Milton Keynes
1983) 186-87; R. Protherough,
"What is a Reading
Cur-
riculum?", in Protherough and
P. King, eds., The Challenge of
English in the National
Curriculum
(London 1995) 46; R. Calfee and
P. Drum, "Research
on Teaching Read-
ing,"
in
M.
Wittrock, ed., Handbook of Research
on Teaching (London 1986)
804-49;
J. Pikulski,
"A
Critical Review:
Informal Reading Inventories,"
in
L.
J. Chapman
and
P. Czerniewska, eds., Reading: From Process to Practice (London 1978) 352-66; and
J. D. Wilhelm,
"You Gotta Be the Book":
Teaching Engaged
and Reflective Reading
with Adolescents
(Urbana, Ill., 1997)
41.
6
See
C. Harrison
et
al., "Responsive Assessment
of Reading: Seeking
Evidence
on
Reading
Attainment
from
Students,"
in M. Coles and R. Jenkins, eds.,
Assessing
Reading 2: Changing Practice
in Classrooms (London 1998)
101-22.
1
S. Smith, On Teaching Classics (London
1977) 24.
8/11/2019 Reader Response and Odyssey
6/18
PAEDAGOGUS 65
through
two
separate
analyses,
with the sentence
serving
as the unit
of
the analysis. The first consisted of reading and rereading the logs, focus-
ing
on
the content
of
the students'
responses.
Extensive notes were
kept,
and key response
patterns
and themes were identified with the use
of
constant
comparison analysis.
In
addition,
the
six-stage
model devised
by
Jack
Thomson8
was
adopted.
Entries in
the
reading logs
were
keyed
ac-
cording
to his
six
stages
in
reading development,
providing
a further
de-
ductive
analysis
of the
reading logs.
This
helped
the researcher focus
on
the
nature of
the students'
responses
in terms
of sentence-level features
that
illustrated
examples
of
empathy, interpretation, reflection, evaluation,
and
so on. Thomson's
six
stages
are:
*
Unreflective
interest
in action
* Empathizing
* Analogizing
*
Reflecting
on the
significance
of events
and
behavior
*
Reviewing the whole work as
the
author's creation
*
Consciously considered relationship
with the author
and
understanding
of self
(identity theme)
and of
one's own
reading processes.
This particular model has been chosen
because it provides a compre-
hensive
classification
of
students'
developing responses.
The
value
of
Thomson's
model
lies in
that it can
relate
the
teacher's
role to the
pupils' responses.
Thomson's claim
that
the
strategies
of
reading are progressive and cumu-
lative9
is also verified
by
this
research. Analysis of
students' worksheets
revealed that their comments involved elements of more than one of these
six
stages.
Because Thomson's categories were not
mutually exclusive and
because the
interviews
extended the researcher's
understanding
of
students'
responses to the
activities,
a
further content analysis followed
to
show the
interrelationship
between
the
descriptive data
as
they emerged in the reading
logs
and the
follow-up accounts
in the
interview
process.
All
interviews
were
audiotaped
and
transcribed. Categories and
themes
were
identified
and
marginal
notes
kept. Identification
of
themes was
based
on
repetition
within
and across
interviews; ideas, concerns,
and
issues, which
were
brought
up
in
students'
responses
in
the
reading logs,
were
considered
significant
and
discussed
extensively
in
the interviews.
What emerged
from this analysis is a profile of four students with
distinctive voices, in that they covered a wide range of responses to the
activities,
from
very positive throughout
the
study
to
the consistently
re-
luctant. The
discussion
also
situates the
individual students' comments
within
the
wider framework
of
the
whole population. Due to limitations
of
space, profiles based on all six lessons
were impractical.
In
terms of
gender
representation,
the
research
profiles
follow the
pattern of the sample
population
and
present
the
accounts of three
females and one male stu-
dent.
The
value of
these profiles
lies
in the
fact
that
they can explain
what
students
bring
to
the reading activity in the form of preconceived
experiences and
expectations
and what
the
particular skills are that stu-
dents can
develop
by using
RRA while
reading.
They
also
show
what
the
factors
are
that affect
responses to literature.
The
objective of the
following analysis is to provide a framework, which
can
help
teachers
organize multiple learning
contexts
for their
students.
8 J.
Thomson, Understanding
Teenagers'
Reading
(Melbourne 1987) 185-223.
9
Thomson
(above,
n.8) 178.
8/11/2019 Reader Response and Odyssey
7/18
66
CLASSICAL
WORLD
By
acknowledging a range of
different ways in
which students
approach
texts, teachers can be more effective in planning their teaching to fit their
students' needs.
For instance, the
recognition that some
students are more
aware of their
reading
processes than
others can
contribute to the devel-
opment
of activities that
enable students
to be aware of
the
reading strat-
egies
they employ while
reading and to
improve the
degree of their
awareness
as
readers. Additionally,
a
consideration of factors
affecting
responses helps
teachers
devise
appropriate tasks
likely to trigger
responses.
VI. Type A
(Maria/A4'0):
Reflective
Responsiveness to the
"Significance"
of
the
Text
Maria
was a
self-motivated student and
avid reader, not
concerned merely
with achieving high grades. Her other A-Level choices were Biology and
Chemistry.
She
demonstrated a
positive
attitude to the
activities,
though
she had
constructive criticisms to
make
during the
interview. In her own
predictions,
Maria indicated a clear
understanding of the
storyline. She
was also
able to consider
characters' emotions and
behavior, link
the pas-
sage
in
question
with
earlier
passages,
and comment on
Homer's tech-
niques
and their
contribution to
the overall
aesthetic effect.
The following
is an extract from her
own
prediction
regarding Odysseus'
likely answer to
Penelope's
questioning
about his identity
(lesson 4):
Either he will not
[reveal
his
identity]
and
give
a
clever
reply
like
"I
have a sad
story
and I do not
want to burden you with it," because he has simi-
larly escaped
awkward situations with such
cunning
before,
or
he
will
tell her a lie which will be
pep-
pered
with
ironic
half-myths,
because Homer likes
to use these for effect.
Either
way
he
will
not re-
veal himself, because he still
has some
planning to
do for the suitors'
revenge,
or
if
he does
it will
be
in
a
surreptitious way,
perhaps
not with total clar-
ity,
because
Odysseus does
things
like this.
Maria's
empathizing with the characters reveals a secure
understanding
of
the
passage and certainly
goes
beyond simple,
rudimentary
comments. The
level of her sophistication of response deviates from simple statements
with no further
justification,
and her comments on the characters reveal a
deep
emotional
understanding.
The
critical
stance
adopted,
however,
does
not necessarily mean that her
response
is less
emotionally
connected
to
the
characters.
Maria used
key
words to describe emotions and attitudes
situating
her
prediction
within the
broader context of the
unfolding
of the
story,
re-
flecting,
thus,
on the
significance of
the events and
character attitude.
Her
response
represents
Thomson's
stage
5, too,
when
referring
to the
way
Homer
presents
his
characters,
on the basis of
Odysseus.
She
also
mentioned that the
way
literature is
taught
at school and the examination
questions
require
a distanced evaluation of the
characters,
which
might
have prevented her from identifying with, or relating to, certain charac-
ters
at
different
stages
of the narrative:
10
All names used in this section are
pseudonyms.
Next to the
name,
the code
of each
student
is
given.
8/11/2019 Reader Response and Odyssey
8/18
PAEDAGOGUS
67
Ordinarily,
f I were not
specifically
asked to think
of myself in that situation, I wouldn't treat them
as
a
person,
as a characterand
try
to look
at
them
in .
. .
you know,
in that
way really.
You
see,
we
are always taught not
to
put
our
own
values
onto
things. We are
always taught
to
try
and evaluate
these people from such
a
long
time ago
on their
own
values
or what
people
aroundthem
might
have
thought, so it's
not
something
I
automatically
do
...
think of
myself
in
that
situation....
Maria's account
appears
more elaborate
after her
exposure
to
team-
work:
Odysseus
has lied
before about
who
he
is,
to
the
Cyclops,
to
Queen
Arete,
to
Eumaeus,
therefore it
is likely he will
answer
the
question but lie.
I
did
not think he
would reveal himself
to
Telemachus
because
it
would be
anticlimax,
but
he
did, there-
fore
it
is
concievable
sic]
that
he
might reveal himself
to
Penelope.
Yet
she
is
the last
important person
not to
recognize
him,
so
perhaps this
recognition
will
be kept back.
It
appearsthat teamwork
helped
Maria with
both
retrospecting
and
an-
ticipating
(which, according
to
Wolfgang Iser,"
are essential in the
read-
ing activity). Retrospectinghelped her to point out similar situations in
the
past
where
Odysseus
had
lied regarding
his
true
identity, althoughnot
all instances had similar
points
of reference for
the
hero. Maria also
re-
vised previous
predictions and
looked closer
at
the authorial
point of view.
These modified
predictions
enabled her
to
realize
the
multiple options of
how
a
story might develop and
the meaningpossibilities
inherent
in
a text
and
to
comprehend
he
reading process.
She was
able
to
rethink her opin-
ions, share them with
her
peers,
and
modify them
in
the
light of
their
comments and
views.
12
VII.
Type
B
(Heather/C9):
Cumulative Progress
through
Exposure to
the
Activities
Heather
was an
average student who often
expressed
her
views in class.
She
was,
from
the beginning,
very enthusiasticabout the
activities, dem-
onstrating her
enthusiasm
with
overall positive comments.
Although she
was
actively
engaged
in
the
class discussion,
her writing skills were rather
undeveloped
and,
as
her
teacher noticed, she found
difficulty expressing
herself in
writing. Heather
progressedgradually through
her exposure to
the
activities.
Her initial responses fell within
the first stages of Thomson's
model,
especially stages
1
and 2, whereas
her second encounter presents
us with
more
sophisticated
responses,
in
terms of level
and quality.
I
W. Iser,
"Interaction
between Text
and Reader,"
in S. R
Suleiman
and
I
C.
Wimmers,
eds., The Reader in
the Text:
Essays
on Audience
Interpretation
(Princeton
1980) 106-19.
12
For
an illuminative
investigation of
small group
discussions
concerning
re-
sponses
to literature, see
ch.
4
in
J. D.
Marshall,
P.
Smagorinsky, and M.
W.
Smith,
The Language
of
Interpretation:
Patterns of
Discourse in
Discussions of
Literature
(Urbana, Ill.,
1995) 58-99.
8/11/2019 Reader Response and Odyssey
9/18
68
CLASSICAL
WORLD
First Encounter:
Lesson I (Prediction
Alternatives)
On the
basis
of her
response to
the first
experimental
lesson,
Heather's
reading
appeared
to be
rather superficial.
She
focused
on
her prescribed
perception
without reflecting
on
new themes
emerging
from
further read-
ing, which
might have
led to a
shift
of her expectations regarding
the
story. The
following extract
of her reading
log is
revealing:
1. Odysseus
thanks
Calypso
and starts
his preparations
immediately.
Odysseus
is an intelligent
man
and
would probably
feel
that she
would not
let him
go.
2. Although
he
is
homesick,
Odysseus
prefers
to stay
with
Calypso,
because she
has
been so
good to him.
He would not
prefer
to stay
with her, because
he terribly
misses
his native land and family.
3. Odysseus
explains
that
he cannot
sail on
a raft
and makes
Ca-
lypso
swear that
she is telling
the truth.
He would
probably
try not
to anger
the goddess
by
insisting
she
tell
him
the truth.
4.
He does
not believe
her
and he is
more miserable
now.
I
agree
with this,
because
Calypso
hasn't
let him
go for seven
years,
why now
all of
a sudden?
Besides, he
has
lost hope after
seven
years.
5.
He
agrees,
but asks her
to
go
with
him.
He
would/may
miss her,
but
not enough
to ask her
to come
with
him.
Her reading
is
characterized
by
an
unreflective
interest
in action.
With
respect
to the Calypso
and
Odysseus
passage,
for
instance,
Heather's
se-
lected
option (4)
reflects
a
partial
reading
based
on
the second
half of the
prediction
alternative.
It fails
to
consider
the
passage
read just
before,
that is,
Hermes'
arrival
at Calypso's
island
and
the announcement
of Zeus'
command to
release Odysseus.
The
impact
of
that event
appears
to
have
been misinterpreted
by
Heather.
Therefore,
one could not be
confident
that
she has
been able
so far
to
incorporate
the
episode
within
her
devel-
oping
reading
schemata
and
perceptual
apparatus.
What
emerges
as a pattern
is that
most responses
were
formed
as short-
term
predictions,
usually
detached
from the
context
of the
passage
under
investigation and shaped on the basis of a partial understanding. They
should,
therefore,
be distinguished
from
long-term
predictions
that
place
specific passages
within a
wider
spectrum
and
reveal
students'
compe-
tence
in
synthesizing
the
relationship
between
different
parts
of
the same
story
and evaluating
the
importance
of the
examined
passages
for
the
epic
as
a whole.
Admittedly,
giving
their
own predictions
was
a
more
demanding
type
of
activity;
students
were
given
no
hints,
apart
from the
passage
to
read.
Thus,
predicting
and anticipating
required
the students'
personal
interest
in the
story
action.
As
in
other
cases,
however,
discussion
within
her
group
led
Heather
to
modify
her
view and
think
again
about the
story.
Even
within the
communal
setting
she
had
kept
her
individual,
distinctive
voice:
We
think
that the
answer
is
a combination
of
I
+
3.
This
is
because
we believe
that he
is
very desper-
ate to leave
and
to
go
home
but
we
think that he
8/11/2019 Reader Response and Odyssey
10/18
PAEDAGOGUS
69
wouldn't be so
ready
to
believe
this,
as it
sounds
too good to be true. But I think IT'S NUMBER 3
[sic].
The
language
she
uses
is
particularly
telling:
first she
adopts
a
communal
stance
acknowledging the contribution of her
group
in
shaping
the
com-
mon
consensus (the we of
the
group) and a further
understanding
of the
text.
Nevertheless,
she
gives
very powerful
(through
capitalizing
her
cho-
sen
alternative)
emphasis
to
her own
perception (the
I)
of
the
story. Thus,
the
individual reader
retains a
reading
that is a
unique and
unrepeatable
event in the interactive
context
of the same
interpretive
community.
The
majority
of the
students benefited from
sharing
their individual
"readings"
with
their
groups,
and
the class
discussions with their
teachers
facilitated the whole process. There was a considerable variety of responses
that ranged from
slight
adjustment of
individuals' views in
light
of
peers'
comments
to total shift of
perspective
as a result of
an
enlightening
en-
counter with
others'
"readings."
Second
Encounter:
Lesson 2
Heather's
second encounter with
RRA
presents
distinct
differences
from
the
first one. All the
prediction alternatives are
considered and the rea-
sons for
choosing
the
selected option and for
rejecting
the others are
mentioned. This can
be seen in the
following:
1.
Nausicaa
is so
impressed that she
falls
in
love with
Odysseus
and
expresses it.
No. I feel this is too much.
She doesn't seem
the
type that falls
in
love just
because of nice
words
said
to impress
her.
2.
Nausicaa
praises him
and
promises
to
help.
Yes, she would be
pleased and would
want
to help
him,
not
only
because of
the
speech,
but
also because
she is anxious
to
find
out
why he is
naked
etc....
3.
She
is
sympathetic
but
does not
feel
able
to help, because
she
fears
her
father.
No,
I feel
she has a
very
good
relationship
with
her father.
And
since
she's the
baby
in
the
family
she
probably
know
[sic] she
can
always
get
what
she
wants-spoilt.
4. She orders her companions to feed Odysseus and give him some-
thing to
wear,
but
advises it
would
be better
for
him
to
leave as
soon as
possible.
I
feel she would be
curious to know
why he is here
and
how he
got
to be
this bad.
5. She
shows no
sympathy
and
leaves
with her
attendants.
No.
She seems too
kind to leave
Odysseus in his
hour
of need
after such
a
speech.
And I
feel that
she is kind
underneath.
These
responses
are
more
context-based and
the
predictions
are long-
term. One
notices a more
personal
contribution
apparent
in
linguistic
terms
as well.
Heather
uses
linguistic
structures
signifying personal
emotions
and
feelings,
such as "I
feel" and "I
think," and
her
language
is more
tentative now.
Expressions
like "she
would" and
"she doesn't
seem"
might
signify
that
Heather is more
aware of the
meaning
possibilities
of
the text
and
the fact that
there is
not
always a
"single,
right"
answer
when it
comes to
the
reading of literature.
8/11/2019 Reader Response and Odyssey
11/18
70 CLASSICAL WORLD
VIII. Type C (Helen/C
15): Fixed Responses to Reading within
Existing Reading Schemata
Helen was a Hungarian-Philippine
girl with no prior knowledge of classical
texts. Her other A-Levels
were History and Sociology. She chose Classi-
cal Civilization as the closest
equivalent to Ancient History, and she was
very interested in mythology.
Her attitude to the activities was rather in-
different,
as
appears from her responses to the immediate
feedback ques-
tionnaires. Helen understood the basic lines of the plot
and used details
from other passages to strengthen
her arguments or reject alternatives that
seemed unlikely to happen.
It
seemed
that she
felt more
comfortable with
the prediction alternatives
and the generic-label type of activities. These
were the two instances where she expressed herself
in a more articulate
way:
1. Odysseus thanks Calypso and starts his preparations
immediately.
No, Odysseus wouldn't because after 7yrs, he
knows Calypso would
not release him
+
let him journey home safely.
2.
Although
he
is
homesick,
he
prefers
to
stay
with her,
because
she
has been
so
good
to him.
He
would not prefer
to stay
because he
had
wept to go
home
and
would take the
opportunity when given
to
him.
3.
Odysseus explains
that he cannot sail
on a
raft
and
makes Ca-
lypso swear that
she
is telling
him the
truth.
Yes, he
would say he can't sail on
a
raft, because Calypso being
a
sea goddess
could make his journey hard+difficult.
At least
if
she gives her word, Odysseus knows she cannot be lying.
4. He
does not
believe her
and
is more miserable
now.
Possible.
He
may be
more
miserable. Odysseus
would be
suspi-
cious as
why Calypso
would
willingly help
him to
leave.
5. He agrees, but
he
asks her
to
go
with
him.
Odysseus
would
not ask
Calypso
to
go
with
him,
because
he
knows
it
would be
unfair
if
he
took
her
home,
where
Penelope might
be
waiting.
Helen
connected different
parts
of
the
story
in order to
reject
or
accept
the alternative outcomes
given
to her.
In
doing so,
she used
reading
strat-
egies that
revealed a clear
understanding
of
the
plot
and
the
characters.
For instance, she pointed out that Odysseus would not be so naive as to
react
in the
way
that
the first alternative
suggested,
because
this did
not fit
with
the way
the character was
depicted up
to that
point.
Her
responses
are indicative
mainly
of
Thomson's
stage 4,
since
her accounts
focus
on
the
significance
of
Odysseus'
behavior
and
likely
reactions
for
the
story
as
a
whole.
Her own
prediction (lesson
4), however,
was less
articulate
than
Maria's,
and she focused
more on
the
passage
in
question,
failing
to link it
to
passages
read earlier:
I
think he
will
avoid
answering
the
question
or
give
an
answer
that
can be
interpreted
in
different
ways.
He does this because he cannot reveal his identity
or else
Penelope
may inadvertently
reveal
that
Odysseus
is
present.
Her
commentary
indicates
empathy
with
the
characters
(stage 2),
al-
though
the
level of
sophistication
is not
particularly
high.
For
instance,
her
reply regarding Penelope's likely
reaction
in
the case
of
Odysseus
8/11/2019 Reader Response and Odyssey
12/18
PAEDAGOGUS
71
revealing
his true
identity
is more reminiscent of
Eurycleia's
reaction
in
the other famous recognition scene, where Odysseus prevented his nurse
from revealing the truth to Penelope. Helen's answer, in a way, does
not
consider the "cunningness"
of
Penelope
as shown in her
manipulation
of
the suitors and
her
weaving
task. Helen was particularly keen on
clear-cut
answers, since "this will give
me
high
marks in the
exams,"
as she men-
tioned. Although
she
enjoyed
exploring
her own and other
peers' views,
she
sometimes
found them
"good,
but rather silly." She goes on to say:
That's the way
I look at
it,
because some of the
responses . . . in the way I understood the charac-
ter, I could
not understand how
they
could think
them
up
. .
.
how
they
could think that the charac-
ters would
think this way.
...
The above quotation
reveals that Helen believed that in
interpreting
the
text there are "correct"
and
"wrong"
answers.
Moreover,
the
right
answers
should be the ones she
thought of,
as she understood the
story.
Helen
lacks sympathy with other readers' ideas and views, and she did not
seem
particularly willing
to consider responses deviating from her
own.
She
also
distinguished
between reading
for
pleasure
and
reading
texts that she
was going to be
examined on:
I
have an interest
in mythology and legends, I re-
ally
love it. I read about
it,
but I could never re-
ally get emotionally
involved and feel connection
or parallel to my own life . . . it is something I
have to
study
.
. .
I
mean,
it's not
something
that
I
read for pleasure. ...
There was a clear dissociation of
reading
for
pleasure
and reading at
school
that prevented Helen from feeling emotionally
involved with the
stories she encountered in the
Odyssey.
Helen tended to
engage
in
her
reading
tasks
mechanically.
Although she was clearly interested in the
reading
of
mythology,
this alone was not a
sufficiently strong
incentive to
attract her
personal engagement
with classical texts. It seems that even
the
elementary prerequisite
of
willing attendance
on Helen's
part
was
over-
shadowed
by
the fact that these were texts she had to
study.
Helen
belongs
to the
category
of students who were
engaged
with the
activities and were able to
gain
new
insights
from
reader-response
ap-
proaches.
The new
insights, however,
were
partial
and
selective,
accepted
only
insofar as
they accommodated
her
existing reading
schemata and
provided
efficient
ways
for her to
proceed
along
a
prestructured pathway to the
reading
of
literature.
This
diminished the level
of
her engagement and the
degree
to which she could
develop
her own
responses:
the fact that she
was reluctant to take into consideration
her classmates' responses
to the
same
passages may
have limited her own
repertoire
of
reading strategies.
As students themselves noted, one of the most significant benefits of
sharing
individual
responses
was that different
views shed light on the possibili-
ties of
multiple meanings that did not form part of the reading repertoire
of individual students.
IX.
Type
D
(Gordon/C19):
Reluctance towards Reflective Reading
Gordon's
reading log did not reveal much about his attitude
towards
the activities.
Therefore,
the
in-depth interview data, which reveal
far more,
have been used as the
focus
of this account. Gordon was a male
student
8/11/2019 Reader Response and Odyssey
13/18
72
CLASSICAL WORLD
with no
experience of classical
subjects. His
other A-Level subjects were
Film Studies and English Literature. He chose Classical Civilization be-
cause he
was interested
in the historical aspect of
classics and
for a rather
pragmatic reason: a
"fast track" in
this subject was
available for him.
Reading was his
favorite activity in the classroom;
the fact,
however, that
his
responses to
literature were to be tested
diminished any enjoyment in
reading. A
pattern throughout
Gordon's responses was his
confidence that
he
had grasped all the
basic elements of the plot
and the
motives behind
the
character reactions,
as well as
their interrelationships.
As he men-
tioned, he
had read the whole book in
advance (as other
students had) and
that
might
have curtailed his
involvement with the activities.
Therefore,
he had a
rather negative attitude to the
activities
on the grounds that they
provided
no further
understanding of the
text:
I understood
and thought
about these things before.
I think it
is
better to read than to guess it.
Gordon's
response
to
the
prediction alternatives also
indicates that he
understood the
passage:
1.
Odysseus thanks Calypso and starts his
preparations
immediately.
No, he wouldn't because he wouldn't believe in
what she said
without
her
swearing on it, or repeating herself.
2.
Although
he is
homesick, he prefers to
stay
with
her,
because she
has been so good to him.
He
would take
every opportunity to go. He wouldn't
stay.
3. Odysseus explains that he cannot sail on a raft and makes Ca-
lypso swear that she is
telling
him the truth.
This I
believe
to be right. He would feel
apprehensive
about the
raft,
he couldn't
survive
in
a
ship
and
why
should
Calypso change
her mind now.
4. He does not believe her and is more miserable now.
If there was
some sign or
hope
he would make
Calypso
swear.
5. He agrees, but he asks her to
go
with him.
He wouldn't.
He doesn't love her or even
like her. He
has a wife.
Gordon
appeared
to
situate
Odysseus'
reaction
on
this
particular
occa-
sion within the set of
permanent
characteristics as
depicted
so far.
Odysseus
does not get excited with the sudden change in Calypso's attitude, and he
is
very suspicious.
His
painful experiences
at sea make him
very
cautious
with
regard to the
nymph's suggestion
that he could sail
on
a raft. This
point
in
particular
distinguishes
Gordon's
responses
from those of his
fel-
low students. There were
certain
students who
rejected
alternative 3 on
the grounds that such a claim would not suit
Odysseus'
adventurous char-
acter and
cunning
mind. It is this
"cunningness," however,
as Gordon
pointed
out,
that made him
particularly
reluctant to believe
Calypso.
From
the above
accounts,
it
emerges
that Gordon was reluctant to work
with the activities rather than reluctant to read the classical texts them-
selves.
It
seems that his
reading
was focused
on information to be taken
away
from the
text, contributing
to academic achievement. Gordon's com-
ments
emphasized
efferent
responses
based on outside
structure,
that
is,
literary elements of the text and what
was
learned
in the classroom. There
was no
attempt
to elaborate
any preferences
or
judgments
based on the
way
he has
experienced
the
story. Although
readers tend to fluctuate be-
8/11/2019 Reader Response and Odyssey
14/18
PAEDAGOGUS
73
tween their efferent
and afferent stances
of
response,
as
Rosenblatt'3
ar-
gued, there is
research14
that indicates there is a strong association be-
tween the reader
stance and the level
of
understanding
of a text.
This
highlights the
need
for teachers to use more aesthetic
activities in
order
to enhance their students'
aesthetic stance of
responding
to literature.
Gaining lived-through experiences
from literature shifts the
emphasis
of reading
from finding
the "correct" nswerto
acquiring
a
personal
meaning
of the text.
At the
beginning
of the
interview,
Gordon
argued
that the
activities were
rather easy
and the
passages
selected non-challenging,
be-
cause they
had obvious outcomes. In addition, Gordon
could not identify
any ways
in which the activities
helped
him to consider the text
more
carefully
or
to understand it better. This
negativity prevented
him
from
consideringdifferent possibilities of meaning.Gordonhad built up certain
rigid reading
schemata, which appearto have stifled
his creative
power
to
transform them in the light of successive readings.
Later on
in
the
interview,
however,
he stated that the forthcoming ex-
aminationsrestricted
his
engagement
with the text:
You see, although
it's a nice idea in principleas
I
said,
but
if we've
got
exams . . . at the end of the
day
we can't
. . . even if I'd write down what I
thought, it won't give
me
high
marks.
...
What the above quotation illustrates
is Gordon's conviction that
the
examinations do not
require
students' "personalvoices," but clear-cut
an-
swers. It also indicates a likely reason for his unwillingnessto modify his
prescribed perception:
a possible modification of
his reading repertoire
might put
at risk the responses that would lead to
the offer of a univer-
sity place.
It
seems also that Gordon dissociated reading for pleasure
at
his own pace and reading at
school. As he reported
irately:
I think there
are no
answers, when I am reading
that
. . .
I've got
no reason to analyze it . . . and
if I want to
analyze it,
I
want to analyze
it. I pre-
dict what's
going
to
happen
in
my
mind. It's nice
predicting
stuff, because
if
you're right,
it's great,
if
you're wrong, you're proved wrong,
it's fine. It's
personal enjoyment . . . whereas for my exams I
am
reading
all those books and I can't wait to read
a book on
my own,
I want to read.I just, it's something
about
just being
told to
read
a
book
.
.
. I
might
like . . . I
might enjoy
another time . . . but at the
moment,
if
you
told me
to
read
a book.
. ..
Clearly,
what made Gordon reluctant to read was that the selection
of
those texts was forced upon him.
This "forced"reading, in a way, created
a
negative
stance toward
reading
at
school, which
was reinforced by the
31
Rosenblatt, The Reader (above, n.5).
1'
J. Many ("The
Effect of Reader Stance on Students'
Personal Understanding
of
Literature," in R.
Ruddell,
M.
Ruddell,
and H.
Singer, eds.,
Theoretical
Models
and Processes of Reading
[Newark, Del.,
1994]
664) notes that "the
aesthetic responses
were also higher in level
of understanding than the efferent
responses."
8/11/2019 Reader Response and Odyssey
15/18
74
CLASSICAL WORLD
nature of
certain examination questions
that,
according to him, required
"predetermined, stock" responses. Thus, in a way, his experience of schooling
so far had
"trained"
him
to look always for the "right" answer. His reply,
when he was asked why there was such a strong connection on students'
part between the reading of literature and the examinations, was particu-
larly telling:
We're brought up that way, it's the way we've been
educated so far . . .
and it's hard to change when
you
are
eighteen....
Gordon
places himself
within
an educational tradition imposing the notion
of certain "correct"
interpretations concerning the study of literature that
is going to be examined. Although his attitude towards the examinations
and the
teaching
of literature was consistent
throughout the interview, it
seems that his
perceptions
of the activities
gradually changed:
It
makes you work better
in
a group and also look
at the
language
of the
passages,
in the text
more....
[W]hen you are asked to predict something which
happens next, you need to
think
about the language
and the characters. . . .
[I]f you
take those
prin-
ciples
and if
you
take that idea and
put
that in the
first term
it
would
work.
. . .
[W]hen we did not
have
the
exams coming up,
then
we would under-
stand more.
...
Thus,
at
a
later stage
in
the interview, probably without realizing it, he
stressed
specific
issues related to the
activities, providing
comments on
the future
applicability
of a similar method. In the course of the inter-
view, Gordon became less defensive and opened up new avenues for com-
munication. His responses reveal that
he had
thought
about the
reading
processes
and how the
responses
of his fellow students could shed
light
on his own views. He also discussed
literary conventions,
such as lan-
guage structure,
and he was able to make
generalizations
about
using pre-
diction activities as a
possible way
of
arriving
at a
greater understanding
of the text. To
summarize,
what is obvious from Gordon's
record is that
shifting
from traditional
perceptions
of
what a "useful" literature lesson
is to more responsive notions of student engagement and involvement re-
quires
a considerable
process
of
adjustment.
As one of the
participant
teachers mentioned:
[I]f they come straight
from
a
history
lesson where
they
are
presented
with a lecture from
which notes
are
"taken,"
or
even
dictated,
and
they
sit
transcribing
for an hour-hard work for the
body,
but
only drawing
on a
tiny part
of the brain-then
in Class.Civ.
[sic],
are asked to
respond, discuss,
articulate
(i.e.,
to be
themselves,
to
think,
to
learn ) well, you
can
imagine
that
it
might
take them a while to
adjust.
.
..
This
adjustment
is a
demanding
task
for teachers and students alike.
Perceptions
that have been formed
over
years
of
schooling
are
difficult to
change.
The switch needs to cater
for the
existing reading
schemata of
students and to
provide
the
necessary
stimuli for the
development
of
per-
8/11/2019 Reader Response and Odyssey
16/18
PAEDAGOGUS
75
sonal responses
in a
way
that seems
neither threatening nor
unattainable
to the participants in the teaching-learning process.
X. Conclusions
These profiles
shed
light
on the following
areas of students'
reading
processes:
students'
reading
schemata
and their
responses
to literature,
the contribution
of RRA to
the
development
of
reading
skills, and
the
progressive
nature of
the reading activity.
These are discussed
in turn
below.
Reading
Schemata
and
Responses
to
Literature
The findings of
this
study suggest
that
readers
come to the reading
activity with a set of preexisting schemata. These schemata are based on
their previous
reading
experiences
and
their
expectations
from reading.
Interaction
with
peers
may
contribute to
a shift in these aesthetic pat-
terns, but
this
is
dependent
on
individuals
possessing
the social
and
com-
municative skills
necessary
for effective peer
collaboration. Social sche-
mata certainly
influence the
reading process
insofar as
they
accommodate
new
perspectives
that
modify
the readers' horizons
of
expectations.'5
Re-
search
conducted
by
the Santa
Barbara Classroom Discourse
Group'6
iden-
tifies
three
different types of student
interactions
with
respect
to
reading
in the classroom: interactions
with the text (through
reading),
interactions
about
the text
(class
discussions,
sharing
of
responses,
written
responses),
interactions
through
the text
(response
journals).
The activities
used in
the study covered all the above modes of student engagement with the
reading
activity.
The different
types
of
predictive
activities
are
pedagogi-
cal
strategies
fostering
the
reciprocal
relationship
between
the
interpreting
reader
and
the text to be interpreted.
They also foster the
social processes
of
peer
collaboration.
These two dimensions
of the
interpretive
work of
the
reader lie at the heart of
the collaborative co-construction
of meaning.
This
analysis highlights
some aspects
of the
reading process
in the classroom,
as
evidenced in this study,
and
may have practical
outcomes
for other
studies
as well."7
Being
a communal setting,
the classroom environment
allows
for the interaction of a multiplicity
of reading
faculties. According
to
the
participants,
this enhances
engagement
with the text and
leads
to
the generation of genuine responses. Peer collaboration suggests peer transactions,
based on specific reading
tasks. It
implies
the interchange
of
ideas
and the
active participation
with fellow students in ways
that aim
at
generating
and
promoting personal
responses
to
the texts. Peer collaboration should
not,
however,
exclude the reflections
of individuals on their responses.
On the evidence of
these
findings,
there were students, like Helen,
who, although they
were actively
engaged
in the reading
process, seemed
15 For the role of interpretive communities, see S. Fish, Is There
a Text in This
Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities (Cambridge,
Mass., 1980)
303-21.
16
Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group, "Constructing
Literacy in Class-
rooms: Literate Action as Social Accomplishment," in Ruddell, Ruddell, and Singer,
eds. (above, n.14) 124-54.
1'
According to Iser (The
Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic
Response [Balti-
more and London, 1978] 108),
"[T]he
reader's enjoyment begins when
he himself becomes
productive, i.e., when the text
allows him to
bring
his own faculties into
play."
8/11/2019 Reader Response and Odyssey
17/18
76
CLASSICAL
WORLD
withdrawn
in respect to
the classroom setting
within
which responses to
literature were generated. On the other hand, students like Maria, who
were "competent"
readers
of literature, benefited
from the interaction
with
their
peers. Apart from having
improved
her social skills,
she emphasized
that group work
had improved her
knowledge,
since others' views
were
explored
as well as her
own. In this context,
literary appreciation
is
seen
as the symbiotic
relationship between
individual responses
and
the shar-
ing of these responses
with other members
of the community.
The out-
come of
this
encounter
is neither
the
product
of the individual
nor of the
community, just
as
the "poem"'8
lies
neither in the reader
nor in the text,
but in the transaction between
both.
RRA and the
Development of Reading
Skills
The findings also indicate that certain activities guided students to fo-
cus
on
specific aspects
of the reading process;
this, in its turn,
led to
skills corresponding
to different
levels of developing
response.
Providing
students
with
prediction
alternatives
contributed towards
their realization
of
multiple
interpretive possibilities
within a text. Asking students
to
make
predictions improved
their
skills as co-constructors
of meaning.
Finally,
students'
responses
to the generic
descriptive
labels revealed
their
capac-
ity to recognize
literary
devices. Thus,
different
activities
served
different
purposes
and
were effective
in helping
a diverse
set
of students
to inter-
act with
the texts.
Weaker
students
found
it
easier to respond
to
a set of
pre-coded
alternatives,
whereas
giving
one's own prediction
was
a
more
demanding activity that required
more
sophisticated
reading
skills.
Re-
garding
the
generic
labels,
it
seems
that
it
was
the nature of this
particu-
lar
type
of
prediction
that allowed
students to move
to more complex
thought processes
concerning
authorial
choices
and the
construction
of
meaning.
19
The Progressive Nature
of
the Reading Activity
Finally,
it
emerged
that
the
reading process
is
progressive,
following
certain
stages
that
vary
from
simple,
rudimentary
reactions
to the
text to
more
elaborate
and thought-provoking
responses.
"Naive" interpretations
need to
be taken
as the
starting point
for
helping
students
strengthen
their
enjoyment
and understanding
of
literature
and become
aware of the read-
ing activity as
a process
that
they
have
to
engage
with
in
order
to
further
their aesthetic schemata.
Another finding
of this
study
was that
amongst
the
six
developmental
stages
of
Thomson's
model,
analogizing (stage
3)
was the
least
recorded.
This
may
be because students
found
little to
link
fictional
characters
in
classical
texts
with their
counterparts
in
modern
literature,
characters
they
themselves could
more easily identify
with. It
was
not
accidental,
for
example,
that
girls
put
themselves
into
Nausicaa's
situation
very easily:
the
age
of the noble
princess
and
the theme
of
the whole
episode
seemed
to have
moved
female
students
of a similar
age,
who
perhaps
shared
the
heroine's concerns
at
this
particular
moment.
Although
it
is true
that
cer-
18
Rosenblatt, "The Poem as Event," College English 26.2 (1964) 123-29.
19
This
follows
research
conducted
by M.
Lewis and
D. Wray
(Literacy
in
the
Secondary
School [London
2000] 20),
who
emphasized
the
need
for
teachers
to
em-
ploy
reading
strategies
"which
focus
pupils'
attention
on
the
ways
which
texts are
constructed
and
the ways
in which meaning
is created
and
might
be
recreated."
8/11/2019 Reader Response and Odyssey
18/18
PAEDAGOGUS
77
tain aspects of the environment and the society described in the story
may sound
alienating to readers
today,
the
themes,
emotions
and feelings
with which
the
Odyssey
deals
retain
a
universal
character,
still
recogniz-
able
for
many contemporary
readers. It is
necessary,
therefore,
for
teach-
ers of
classical literature to
adopt
a
methodology that
points out the com-
monalities of the human
condition
and
links classical
texts with the
expe-
riences of
modern readers.
In order
to develop
more sophisticated responses
that literature requires,
one must
first
investigate
the
reading
processes
of
students in their
sense-
making
approach
to texts.
Using
pedagogical
tools that
allow
space for
students both
to reflect
on
their
responses as individual readers and that
also expose
them
to
public scrutiny
may help
students
realize
the
reading
processes they adopt in the classroom reading. This may lead to aware-
ness
of
themselves as
readers and
to more
responsive "encounters" with
literary
texts.
University
of Cambridge
PANOS
SERANIS
Classical World 98.1
(2004)
Medusa
Mythology Exam
2005
J
Endorsed
by
the
AmericanClassical
League
The
9th
annual
Medusa
Mythology
Exam is
available to all
students
in
grades
9-12
(regardless
of Latin/Greek
enrollment).
The
Medusa
is
composed
of
50
multiple
choice
questions.
"Oracles & Prophecies" is the theme. Top achieversreceive
certificates or
medals
imported
from
Italy.
Our
highest-
scoringparticipants
apply
for
awards to assist with
educational
expenses.
Fees:
$3.00 / student
plus
a
$15
school fee. Exam will
be
administered
during
the
week
of
April 4-8,
2005
(choose
one
day;
we work around
springbreaks).
Register
by
15
February
2005. Download materialsor
contact:
US
MAIL:
Medusa
Mythology
Exam,P.O.Box
1032,Gainesville,
VA
20156
VOX:
800)
896-4671
FAX:
240)
250-4502
WWW:
ww.medusaexam.org
E-MAIL: